How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics. No miracles allowed in my theology.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics. No miracles allowed in my theology.

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Sweetly.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics. No miracles allowed in my theology.

Why do you dogmatically and religiously profess that the material is all that exists?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

To an extent I agree with you. I am a skeptic after all. I think people overestimate the evidence or certainty of everything from their religion to existence itself. Still, I find it impossible to go along with something I really think is imaginary. (I'm not really talking about things like myths, which are a different discussion). For example, for years I have been grappling with the fact that I reject or simply don't believe some of what is foundational to Christianity, and can only seem to go along with an imaginary (=romanticized/cherry-picked/cafeteria) version of it. I know what I am attracted to is not real, but is a creation of my mind. Yes, in some sense everything is a creation of my mind, or a biased view of my mind, or however you want to put it. But what I mean is, whatever the real thing (or whatever) is, I know that my own version is a manipulated and imaginary creation crafted to make Christianity more palatable to me (no eternal damnation for eating a cup cake, no moral hang ups from the bronze age, etc.)

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

To an extent I agree with you. I am a skeptic after all. I think people overestimate the evidence or certainty of everything from their religion to existence itself. Still, I find it impossible to go along with something I really think is imaginary. (I'm not really talking about things like myths, which are a different discussion). For example, for years I have been grappling with the fact that I reject or simply don't believe some of what is foundational to Christianity, and can only seem to go along with an imaginary (=romanticized/cherry-picked/cafeteria) version of it. I know what I am attracted to is not real, but is a creation of my mind. Yes, in some sense everything is a creation of my mind, or a biased view of my mind, or however you want to put it. But what I mean is, whatever the real thing (or whatever) is, I know that my own version is a manipulated and imaginary creation crafted to make Christianity more palatable to me (no eternal damnation for eating a cup cake, no moral hang ups from the bronze age, etc.)

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Trolls are fantasy creatures, and yet here you are.

Like the Troll in The Fellowship of the Ring, or the ones in The Hobbit?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Yes, like the ancient skeptics (though probabilist, like Carneades), not so much like the modern debunkers/skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc. Though the Amazing Randi is pretty entertaining. Anyway, but I wouldn't say disconcerting, though it is, for me anyway, intellectually paralyzing at times.

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

To an extent I agree with you. I am a skeptic after all. I think people overestimate the evidence or certainty of everything from their religion to existence itself. Still, I find it impossible to go along with something I really think is imaginary. (I'm not really talking about things like myths, which are a different discussion). For example, for years I have been grappling with the fact that I reject or simply don't believe some of what is foundational to Christianity, and can only seem to go along with an imaginary (=romanticized/cherry-picked/cafeteria) version of it. I know what I am attracted to is not real, but is a creation of my mind. Yes, in some sense everything is a creation of my mind, or a biased view of my mind, or however you want to put it. But what I mean is, whatever the real thing (or whatever) is, I know that my own version is a manipulated and imaginary creation crafted to make Christianity more palatable to me (no eternal damnation for eating a cup cake, no moral hang ups from the bronze age, etc.)

This is not at all to what I am referring, a naive skepticism, but rather one of the structuring elements of belief always being within the imagined realm. Maybe I can get back to you. Did you catch my PM about computer / work situation . . . I might Audi (non-marc) for a while.

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.

Sweet! If you would like this to be about me, I will indulge you.

I was born in 1979. Exciting times were afoot. Three Mile Island just sustained a partial nuclear meltdown threatening not just PA, but also New York City which would have been in the wind stream of the plume. Out of this drama rose an infant child, born only a few short miles away. He had bright blue eyes and a curious smile. As I crested out of the birth canal, my mother gave a final shriek and out I came into a bright new, but uncertain, world! I had not yet formulated by opinion on Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but in only a few short years, I began to ponder the potential of their existence. Being a precocious child with a stern father who believed only in giving his child factual information, I soon discarded any belief in such fantasy creatures.

I don't wish to burden you with too much information at one time, but if you would continue to learn about my beliefs regarding mythical creatures, please let me know. Also, I can further explain my transformation from blastocyst to descent from the birth canal as it might be helpful to get a better understanding on my early, formational thinking.

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Do sceptics of the Pyrrhonite school even exist nowadays? If they do they must be an endangered species.

Some believe that the absolute skepticism of some of the ancients is just philosophically absurd. Aristotle argues about how their position actually assumes the truth of certain first principles, like the law of non-contradiction.

That's why I find Cartesian/Kantian skepticism much more interesting.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Yes, like the ancient skeptics (though probabilist, like Carneades), not so much like the modern debunkers/skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc. Though the Amazing Randi is pretty entertaining. Anyway, but I wouldn't say disconcerting, though it is, for me anyway, intellectually paralyzing at times.

What about Descartes' and Kant's "skepticism?" Are they of any interest to you?

« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 01:33:08 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I tend to see scepticism and the related solipsism as a joke. It can, however, be hilarious to use sceptisicm and solipsism to make the most outlandish claims and then ask Average Joe to disprove it.

Well, they are a joke for most. However, the possibility of solipsism has been very disconcerting for some philosophers.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I find the contrived skepticism and assumption-riddled dogmatism of Descartes [unhelpful]. There aren't a ton of skeptics who mirror the ancient ones around, that I know of anyway; first because there isn't really a role for them in Academia, and second because most people are uneasy with the whole challenge they present, and it's easier to dismiss them with statements which completely misunderstand what they're doing, statement like "are you certain there are no certainties?" or "do you know that you don't know that you don't know?". Peter Unger (NYU) is one professional philosopher that is a radical skeptic that I'm aware of. I believe if this kind of radical skepticism is used as a world view or system, or with any rigidity really, then it is self-contradictory; however, if it is used as a tool then it has value, intellectually if not often practically.

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I find the contrived skepticism and assumption-riddled dogmatism of Descartes [unhelpful]. There aren't a ton of skeptics who mirror the ancient ones around, that I know of anyway; first because there isn't really a role for them in Academia, and second because most people are uneasy with the whole challenge they present, and it's easier to dismiss them with statements which completely misunderstand what they're doing, statement like "are you certain there are no certainties?" or "do you know that you don't know that you don't know?". Peter Unger (NYU) is one professional philosopher that is a radical skeptic that I'm aware of. I believe if this kind of radical skepticism is used as a world view or system, or with any rigidity really, then it is self-contradictory; however, if it is used as a tool then it has value, intellectually if not often practically.

Ok. This last sentence is very helpful. Thanks for sharing.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either. What do you think about nominalism?

« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 02:36:48 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either. What do you think about nominalism?

I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.

I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either. What do you think about nominalism?

I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.

I find myself somewhat closer to the agnostic conceptualist camp; I don't think we can definitively answer whether or not universals and abstracts exist. This is my criticism toward both Plato and Nominalism because they both assert that they can. I'd much rather just leave it a mystery. However, I believe that we can at least understand them as mental concepts and use them to categorize patterns in observable material phenomena. As to whether they really exist, I don't know or care.

Sometimes I think it's because people think of existence in a narrow concrete way. Many things exist that are not concrete. In fact, concrete things seem to be the most fragile of all things that exist, the ones closest to non-existance.

I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either. What do you think about nominalism?

I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.

I find myself somewhat closer to the agnostic conceptualist camp; I don't think we can definitively answer whether or not universals and abstracts exist. This is my criticism toward both Plato and Nominalism because they both assert that they can. I'd much rather just leave it a mystery. However, I believe that we can at least understand them as mental concepts and use them to categorize patterns in observable material phenomena. As to whether they really exist, I don't know or care.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 04:36:07 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either. What do you think about nominalism?

How is it incoherent? Is there really anything like nominalism as such? I am not sure a nominalist would argue for such a thing. Which argument for nominalism do find incoherent? What is Plato's view? His view on what?

I am not sure I can quite believe in a universal or rather as I was saying in another thread, universals might be part of the imaginary so that I can encounter anything at all. Universals certainly do strike me as a having a certain psychic element to them. Nietzsche was clear about this, but I think his conclusions while brilliant led himself back to the same spot he was trying to get away from.

There are three threads going on right now that come down to the old questions of the many and the one.

Just cause you say so, doesn't make it so. Should I use my Applebee's analogy again.

This is not to say because of certain circumstances you have inculcated yourself with enough reading to think you are not a nominalist, but I would have to get you in the every day so to speak to demonstrate to you how often you like act in a nominalist manner.

Papist is going to say the same thing. Again, I am not going to argue people aren't going to tell me they believe in universals, especially those who take philosophy as some hobby and take a reactionary stance, like both you and Papist tend to.

But in my day to day life, and this is recent revelation to me, people are functional nominalists. And how people act and in virtue of what they do is much more interesting to me than someone who can parrot a summary of a philosophical trend.

EDIT: Observe your friends, unless they philosophy students, and see how they act and in virtue of what they discuss "bigger questions". You can do the experiment yourself. I really don't care if you agree with me. Agreement or being right or wrong are the most boring of ways to deal with thought.

When people shout, incoherence or inconsistent when dealing with interesting questions, I hear: I am boring and unproductive. An awe filled and passionate adversary I'll take any day over a milktoast agreer with me.

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics. No miracles allowed in my theology.

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology. They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc. They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass.

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab. Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology. They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc. They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass.

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab. Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it. Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal